HSBC and Bangkok Bank, A Warning To All.

[Oztruckie]

When i click on accept the  deal and exchange rate with my bank in OZ i can see the exact amount which will be delivered to my kbank account here in los,my oz bank dont charge any fees on amount over 10k,they make there money from the lower ex rate whick is about 0.20 bht less than the interbank rate.Does anyone have any info on kasikorn bank regarding Int.transfers from OZ.Just recently transferred small amount from OZ to kasikorn bank,I've noticed they helped themselves to 1200 thb pocket money or whatever you want to call it.Do they use a 3rd party bank to effect the the transaction.

[BEVUP]

Transfered $4000 AUD from ANZ  (They add on & take $18 fee above amount sent ) & I received it yesterday in my BB account

Equated to 98,700 BHT 

Checked X Rates - BB = 25.3 today / KK = 24.69 (I guess this is not the reason some are swapping )

BB rate should = 250 bht 

There was a listing on my account sheet - BAHTNET (I need to check what this is )

 

[lopburi3]

Is your account outside of Bangkok?  Expect there is a small change to send other locations (as is true of almost everything here).  They would also have removed .25% of the baht total before crediting your account (range 200 to 500 baht).

[BEVUP]

8 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

Is your account outside of Bangkok?  Expect there is a small change to send other locations (as is true of almost everything here).  They would also have removed .25% of the baht total before crediting your account (range 200 to 500 baht).

Korat 

[manchega]

I stand or sit corrected.  I remember hsbc is in china town and is international bank though. 

[Jip99]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:12 PM, lopburi3 said:

Is your account outside of Bangkok?  Expect there is a small change to send other locations (as is true of almost everything here).  They would also have removed .25% of the baht total before crediting your account (range 200 to 500 baht).

 

Not HSBC/BKB related, so a tad off topic, but it looks like I just picked up a (correspondent bank) charge on a Sterling transfer from HSBC to Kasikorn. This has never happened in the last 10 years and circa 500 Baht appears to have been nibbled en route.... I am waiting for K Bank to clarify the deductions but I simply post as a warning that it seems as if it not just transfers to Bangkok Bank that are affected.

[JoeSuperCool]

I just transferred £100 from 1st Direct (part of HSBC) just to test as I have a new account and received a grand total of 2600 THB, was expecting something around 4000 THB. 1st Direct promised free international transfers. Will go to my Bangkok Bank Branch tomorrow and find out how much was transferred to them and go back to 1st Direct. Anyone know of a better way of transferring between HSBC and Bangkok Bank?

[Jip99]

38 minutes ago, JoeSuperCool said:

I just transferred £100 from 1st Direct (part of HSBC) just to test as I have a new account and received a grand total of 2600 THB, was expecting something around 4000 THB. 1st Direct promised free international transfers. Will go to my Bangkok Bank Branch tomorrow and find out how much was transferred to them and go back to 1st Direct. Anyone know of a better way of transferring between HSBC and Bangkok Bank?

 

Bangkok Bank charges will be minimal... probably around 200 Baht. The rest will be a correspondent bank charge in the UK (Nat West in my case).

 

Your best bet is to look at TransferWise, for example, or consider Barclays who transfer to Thailand for free.

 

Galls me to say it as HSBC pay my pension !!

[JoeSuperCool]

I spoke to both Bangkok Bank and 1st Direct today (obviously had nothing better to do). The Bangkok Bank charges were 200 THB in Thailand. The correspondent bank charges which was Bangkok Bank in London who charged £35. After raising a complaint with 1st Direct and threatening FCA action if it wasn't resolved the £35 is sitting back in my 1st Direct account already. 

 

Now tried TransferWise, hope the process is a lot smoother. Now deciding what to spend my £35 on........beer!

[SooKee]

On 13/11/2017 at 11:11 AM, Jip99 said:

 

Not HSBC/BKB related, so a tad off topic, but it looks like I just picked up a (correspondent bank) charge on a Sterling transfer from HSBC to Kasikorn. This has never happened in the last 10 years and circa 500 Baht appears to have been nibbled en route.... I am waiting for K Bank to clarify the deductions but I simply post as a warning that it seems as if it not just transfers to Bangkok Bank that are affected.

I posted in another thread about this.  Same situation HSBC UK transfer to Kasikorn in GBP.  It was a test transfer to ensure I'd got all the details right (I prefer getting an SMS saying funds have arrived than just double and treble checking every detail of the transfer before I transfer a large sum).  Kasikorn charges are standard (0.25% - min 200 / max 500) and out of the £200 I sent HSBC and / or their chums helped themselves to £13 and Kasikorn confirmed only £187 arrived.

 

As I'd never had this charge before on literally thousands of transfers I was absolutely certain this was just an input error HSBC end; no such luck.  HSBC responded to an enquiry with "Ooooohhh, no idea really, guess it was an intermediary".

 

What I'm not sure of is why I caught this charge this time around.  Never been fleeced for anything above the £4 before in GBP transfers to Kasikorn.  The ONLY thing that was different was the BIC code I used.  As the new transfer I set up no longer had the KASITHBK option I had to use the KASITHBKXXX BIC which Kasikorn tell me are interchangeable.  Was that the cause I wonder.  Or was it the fact that the robbed transfer was coming out of the UK just as the banking system was surfacing from the Christmas public holidays?  It's all guesswork really.  What is odd though is that I did a much larger transfer the day after using the old payee (and BIC code) - no charge, full sum arrived??

 

Either way though I'm now trying to establish whether it indeed IS the new BIC I used by trying yet another transfer (£100 this time) using that set of details.  If that transfer also gets mugged en-route I'll try yet another to the old BIC and sod the fact that my address details on that 'Payee' are different to my current address.  If the only common factor to me getting hit is using the new BIC code I'll stick to the old one.  If they both get mugged though I'll change to using Transferwise.  The £4 transfer deal was always a bonus with HSBC Premier, not so much so if you're going to be subject to undisclosed fleecing of your funds en-route by HSBC and their chums.  It's all well and good HSBC trying to hide behind "either the sending or receiving banks may charge", it's HSBC and THEIR decision to use an intermediary that's the culprit.

[SooKee]

Well, that confirms it (or at least confirms it enough for me), it's the different BIC that is the only thing I can think of that's causing the transfers to get charged or, the newness of the 'Payee' set-up relating to using that 'new' BIC that is seemingly causing the transfer to get hit with an intermediary fee.  The payee using the old BIC code was set up 4 years ago, the payee using the new BIC code (same Kasikorn account - just with a different payee address) about 2 months ago.

 

Transferred £100 yesterday and expected around 4,000 baht to arrive in the account today (approx 42.8 minus the 200 baht Kasikorn fee).  Amount credited 3,525!!

 

Transfer of 200 GBP on 27/12/17 using KASITHBKXXX - intermediary charge £13!

 

Transfer of 1,600 GBP on 28/12/17 using KASITHBK - no intermediary charge

 

Transfer of 100 GBP on 10/01/18 using KASITHBKXXX - intermediary charge £13!!

 

I might at some time go into to Kasikorn to get them to check whatever details they can to ensure that it's nothing happening their end but I don't think it is.  When I checked with Kasikorn first time around they said an amount smaller than transferred reached the account, I doubt it's anything to do with Kasikorn clearing while it's on the way from arrival in Thailand to my account.

 

What it does make you wonder though is whether HSBC are changing something and whether eventually they'll get around to changing longer established payee set ups so they will all get hit.  My next GBP transfer, using the old KASITHBK, will be made at the end of this month so we'll see how that goes.

Edited January 11, 2018 by SooKee

[SooKee]

Been doing some research on transfers since I'm no longer happy to play the game of Russian roulette that's involved in doing transfers from HSBC, even with their 'great value' deal of a flat fee of £4 for transfers from Premier accounts, flat that is until HSBC decide it's time to let their chums mug your transfer while it's en route to wherever.  I found out (luckily) about the growing threat of this on a small transfer and got slammed for £13 on £200 (and subsequently for the same amount on a £100!) transfer.  I dread to think what that would have been on £2-3,000!  While I seem to have cured it for now, by reverting to using an older established payee with an older BIC, I'm no longer prepared to put faith in HSBC and find one day that they've worked round to hitting older established payee's by switching to using an intermediary.  

 

Over the last few days I've been looking at comparisons, primarily using TransferWise (TW), as an alternative to HSBC.  TransferWise was recommended to me because of the higher exchange rate they can guarantee vs letting a Thai bank convert GBP on arrival (I would never EVER use the option to send the funds in Thai baht as that would attract the worst rate of any).  Initially I dismissed the TW option as I interpreted their transfer estimate wrongly in that I thought their fees would be on top of the sum you need to transfer to reach the target amount in baht. Not so, their transfer / Forex conversion estimation includes the deduction they will make on the sum you transfer, it's not a fee you need to add.

 

By way of an example, using a target amount of 75,000 baht (a fairly rounded random amount that's not very low and not particularly high) using today's GBP/THB rate (as shown using XE Currency) of 43.30 (merely as a guide):

 

HSBC: I find that using HSBC I will always get around 0.5 baht less to the £ using the XE rate.  In addition, while it's only a paltry amount, you need to cater for the 200 baht fee the Thai bank will make for the Forex receipt / conversion.  So for 75,200 you'd need to transfer £1,757.  On top of that there's the £4 HSBC fee (plus of course the risk of getting mugged by HSBC and their chums by way of intermediary charges if you're unlucky). A total of £1,761.

 

TransferWise: Much easier to calculate.  Simply, you'd need to pay TW a total of £1,746 to receive 75,037 baht (at the time of checking).  That's £15 less than you'd need with HSBC, not an insignificant amount!  Further, AFAIK, the way TW operate is that the sum you transfer is paid in to your account in local currency from an account they hold in that country so there will be no receiving bank Forex fee.

 

The other thing I have noticed, indicating to me that something has definitely changed with the way HSBC handles such transfers, is the time they now take.  Up until about 2 months ago, I could do a transfer from the UK at say, 11:00 am (Thai time) on a Tuesday (thus avoiding any possible delays caused by weekend system shut-downs etc) and the sum would always leave my account pretty much within minutes.  It would then arrive in my Thai (Kasikorn) bank account within 2-3 hours, without fail, every single time.  That's changed now.  I first noticed it when a transfer didn't arrive as expected and the trend I've noticed now is that funds will not leave the UK account for 8-12 hours after you complete the instruction.  Why is that I wonder?  The funds are thus now never received in my Thai bank until the next day.  Previously, if I'd done a transfer after Thai banks were closed for business, they would always arrive at exactly 09:34 (literally to the minute) on the next day.  Now it's either later or a lot later, sometimes very late afternoon before the funds arrive.  It's still fast enough for a transfer given that some take 3-5 days but I mention it only as an indicator that, despite what they say, something has changed with regard to the way HSBC handles transfers.  Given the track record of HSBC with regard to the scandals they've been involved in, I take any HSBC assurance with a pinch of salt.

 

For the immediate future I'll pass on HSBC and their 'preferential' Premier transfer rate and stick to TransferWise, unless anyone knows of an even better way.

[SooKee]

On 07/11/2017 at 3:22 PM, Pib said:

Yeap...sure sound like a middle man bank (correspondent bank) took a slice.   A person can go to their branch and ask for a printout which provides details of the arrival amount.  It show how much foreign currency arrived before the receiving bank took their slice, should show where the money arrived from, and other info.

With regard to the above.  I'm guessing the Thai bank will not show the intermediary fee being taken, when and by whom, as all they'll show (or at least in my case) is the amount that turns up in their account and the fact that it's less than that which was transferred.  What's far more concerning is that the sending bank also seems to lack the detail you might need in this case, even if you enquire specifically about what has gone on.  When I queried it with HSBC the response was very lame showing zero degree of enquiry had been undertaken.  If they are using an Intermediary why are the details of who it it, what charge has been levied and why no readily available to customers.  Surely, in light of today's heavily regulated banking industry there must be an audit trail, why is that audit trail not readily visible to customers, especially when it involves such large amounts (10% + on  transactions).

 

I'm certainly referring my case to the Ombudsman (FWIW) suggesting that where UK banks use intermediaries there needs to be systems in place so that a fully transparent audit trail is READILY available to customers so they are not left wondering whether it is indeed a charge or whether it's down to some enterprising / pilfering member of staff syphoning off funds before they arrive, knowing they can use these mysterious (and seemingly undocumented) intermediary charges to hide behind.  I very much doubt that theft it is the case but the financial institutions have been rife with their fair share of crooks in the past and without that level of transparency how can you be sure? 

[Jip99]

8 minutes ago, SooKee said:

With regard to the above.  I'm guessing the Thai bank will not show the intermediary fee being taken, when and by whom, as all they'll show (or at least in my case) is the amount that turns up in their account and the fact that it's less than that which was transferred.  What's far more concerning is that the sending bank also seems to lack the detail you might need in this case, even if you enquire specifically about what has gone on.  When I queried it with HSBC the response was very lame showing zero degree of enquiry had been undertaken.  If they are using an Intermediary why are the details of who it it, what charge has been levied and why no readily available to customers.  Surely, in light of today's heavily regulated banking industry there must be an audit trail, why is that audit trail not readily visible to customers, especially when it involves such large amounts (10% + on  transactions).

 

I'm certainly referring my case to the Ombudsman (FWIW) suggesting that where UK banks use intermediaries there needs to be systems in place so that a fully transparent audit trail is READILY available to customers so they are not left wondering whether it is indeed a charge or whether it's down to some enterprising / pilfering member of staff syphoning off funds before they arrive, knowing they can use these mysterious (and seemingly undocumented) intermediary charges to hide behind.  I very much doubt that theft it is the case but the financial institutions have been rife with their fair share of crooks in the past and without that level of transparency how can you be sure? 

 

 

If you ask the Thai bank they will tell you.

 

I enquired of Kasikorn and they confirmed that they received £987 of my £1,000.....

[SooKee]

4 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

If you ask the Thai bank they will tell you.

 

I enquired of Kasikorn and they confirmed that they received £987 of my £1,000.....

Yes but they can only tell you what funds they receive.  They cannot see the taking of funds by an intermediary bank as your funds are en route to your account.  In my case, I sent a test transfer of £200.  Kasikorn confirm £187 arrived.  HSBC shows £200 + their £4 charge being debited to my account.  HSBCs response was very lame, as I say, no attempt to provide any detail or check an audit trail (an audit trail that must be there).  As far as you the customer is concerned there is no readily visible audit trail of your funds getting hit en-route, when and by who.

[Pib]

Intermediary (correspondent) bank fees are sliced-off as the funds flow through them unless the sending bank has a contract with the intermediary bank to pay them separately.   The receiving bank should only be able to tell you how much arrived...doubtful they will be able to see what was originally transmitted from the sending bank.   The sending bank may not know how much an intermediary bank will possibly slice off as a fee but they can find out because they are the ones that selected the routing of the money to reach the receiving bank....they are the ones which sent your money.

 

And actually the sending bank will most likely initially play dumb on the issue when talking to their front-line customer support rep....usually saying it was probably a receiving bank fee (a standard excuse) because if saying it was probably an intermediary bank fee that makes the customer feel the sending and intermediary bank are in-bed with each other....why does the sending bank have to use an intermediary bank causing this fee, why get another bank involved, etc.?  Generally a customer will blame any intermediary bank fee as being caused by the sending bank.

 

From reading many ThaiVisa posts over the years on money that seems to go missing/gets sliced off enroute for those that run to ground the real reason for the missing money/that mysterious extra fee it's almost always boiled down to an intermediary bank fee.   Nothing new about intermediary bank fees....whether you get hit with one will largely depend on the Sending bank's capability to send money worldwide, agreements/relationships with other intermediary banks, etc.

 

 

 

[SooKee]

15 minutes ago, Pib said:

Intermediary (correspondent) bank fees are sliced-off as the funds flow through them unless the sending bank has a contract with the intermediary bank to pay them separately.   The receiving bank should only be able to tell you how much arrived...doubtful they will be able to see what was originally transmitted from the sending bank.   The sending bank may not know how much an intermediary bank will possibly slice off as a fee but they can find out because they are the ones that selected the routing of the money to reach the receiving bank....they are the ones which sent your money.

 

And actually the sending bank will most likely initially play dumb on the issue when talking to their front-line customer support rep....usually saying it was probably a receiving bank fee (a standard excuse) because if saying it was probably an intermediary bank fee that makes the customer feel the sending and intermediary bank are in-bed with each other....why does the sending bank have to use an intermediary bank causing this fee, why get another bank involved, etc.?  Generally a customer will blame any intermediary bank fee as being caused by the sending bank.

 

From reading many ThaiVisa posts over the years on money that seems to go missing/gets sliced off enroute for those that run to ground the real reason for the missing money/that mysterious extra fee it's almost always boiled down to an intermediary bank fee.   Nothing new about intermediary bank fees....whether you get hit with one will largely depend on the Sending bank's capability to send money worldwide, agreements/relationships with other intermediary banks, etc.

 

 

 

Exactly.  I'm fully aware there's nothing new in the use of intermediaries.  The problem for me is the total lack of transparency and the lack of an audit trail even when the customer contacts the sending bank with a specific enquiry (IMO the information should be readily visible online as part of the transaction details).  All down to the way banks operate and the reason I have as little to do with them as possible. Trust, the bank, you must be joking!

 

What is so very odd in this case is that I'd NEVER been hit with a HSBC UK > Kasikorn GBP transfer intermediary charge before and indeed have only been hit with one twice now, both times when using a newly set up payee using the KASITHBKXXX BIC.  You would think that could be the cause, it's the only common factor between to the transfers that got hit though.

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, SooKee said:

Yes but they can only tell you what funds they receive.  They cannot see the taking of funds by an intermediary bank as your funds are en route to your account.  In my case, I sent a test transfer of £200.  Kasikorn confirm £187 arrived.  HSBC shows £200 + their £4 charge being debited to my account.  HSBCs response was very lame, as I say, no attempt to provide any detail or check an audit trail (an audit trail that must be there).  As far as you the customer is concerned there is no readily visible audit trail of your funds getting hit en-route, when and by who.

 

 

No, but it is a simple calculation....

 

it is not taken by HSBC because they debit the transferred amount + (in your case) the GBP 4 charge. Kasikorn received GBP187 and took off their charges (not visible, but obvious from their website).  The other invisible i.e. the amount l'lost' between HSBC and Kasikorn can only be an intermediary charge.

[SooKee]

Just now, Jip99 said:

 

 

No, but it is a simple calculation....

 

it is not taken by HSBC because they debit the transferred amount + (in your case) the GBP 4 charge. Kasikorn received GBP187 and took off their charges (not visible, but obvious from their website).  The other invisible i.e. the amount l'lost' between HSBC and Kasikorn can only be an intermediary charge.

I know it's a simple calculation!  It's not the amount that's the issue, anyone can work that out.  It's the total lack of transparency from the sending bank, even after specific enquiry as to which bank the fee was paid to, exactly how much, when and for what reason? The same kind of detail that is readily visible when you check your account online (transfer date, amount, payee, reference etc).  In these days of tight financial regulation customers should be able to avail themselves of an accurate, transparent and readily accessible audit trail not rely on the supposition that £200 - £187 = £13 that was in all probability taken by an intermediary (or some thieving tyke - unlikely but without the audit trail how can you be sure?) or have to put up with the deliberately vague information, to the point of only even suggesting that it 'might' be an intermediary charge when contacting the sending bank.  It's not like the audit trail isn't there.  That's the point, the specific detail not £200 - £187 = £13!  

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, SooKee said:

I know it's a simple calculation!  It's not the amount that's the issue, anyone can work that out.  It's the total lack of transparency from the sending bank, even after specific enquiry as to which bank the fee was paid to, exactly how much, when and for what reason? The same kind of detail that is readily visible when you check your account online (transfer date, amount, payee, reference etc).  In these days of tight financial regulation customers should be able to avail themselves of an accurate, transparent and readily accessible audit trail not rely on the supposition that £200 - £187 = £13 that was in all probability taken by an intermediary (or some thieving tyke - unlikely but without the audit trail how can you be sure?) or have to put up with the deliberately vague information, to the point of only even suggesting that it 'might' be an intermediary charge when contacting the sending bank.  It's not like the audit trail isn't there.  That's the point, the specific detail not £200 - £187 = £13!  

 

Interesting that you blame the remitting bank

 

 

Don't misunderstand me, I am not defending HSBC (despite working for them for 31 years!) - they have handled the changes badly and have not understood the impact on customers - for all the valid reasons you mention.

 

However - it may not be their fault. Not saying it isn't, but I couldn't find out who/what caused the change (that resulted in our payments no longer going direct)...... it could be a result of changes with the Thai banks. The comment about account relationships no longer existing between HSBC and Kasikorn/BKK et al, could be a result of actions/changes on either party's side.

[SooKee]

 
Interesting that you blame the remitting bank [emoji2]
 
 
Don't misunderstand me, I am not defending HSBC (despite working for them for 31 years!) - they have handled the changes badly and have not understood the impact on customers - for all the valid reasons you mention.
 
However - it may not be their fault. Not saying it isn't, but I couldn't find out who/what caused the change (that resulted in our payments no longer going direct)...... it could be a result of changes with the Thai banks. The comment about account relationships no longer existing between HSBC and Kasikorn/BKK et al, could be a result of actions/changes on either party's side.

Yup. It sure is a mystery. It's only a gut feeling that it's down to HSBC. As you say, might be the Thai bank. But you'd think if it was the Thai bank there'd be some kind of audit trail of the funds getting depleted on their way to your account. Also, if it was the Thai bank change you'd think all three of my recent transactions would have been hit, not just two of them.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Pib]

Banksters-R-Fees

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, SooKee said:

Yup. It sure is a mystery. It's only a gut feeling that it's down to HSBC. As you say, might be the Thai bank. But you'd think if it was the Thai bank there'd be some kind of audit trail of the funds getting depleted on their way to your account. Also, if it was the Thai bank change you'd think all three of my recent transactions would have been hit, not just two of them.

Sent using Tapatalk
 

 

 

No SooKee, the charge is definitely a third party charge (in my case it was Nat West)..... my query is whether the charge incurred with Nat West as correspondent Bank was caused by changes by HSBC or the Thai banks.

 

Whatever the reason I agree 100% that there should be transparency BEFORE you instruct the transfer and (ideally) you should see all deductions upfront.

[SooKee]

42 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

No SooKee, the charge is definitely a third party charge (in my case it was Nat West)..... my query is whether the charge incurred with Nat West as correspondent Bank was caused by changes by HSBC or the Thai banks.

 

Whatever the reason I agree 100% that there should be transparency BEFORE you instruct the transfer and (ideally) you should see all deductions upfront.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.  My saying that it's down to HSBC was in response to you saying "interesting that you blame the remitting bank".  In other words I'm 'blaming' HSBC for their decision to use an intermediary, not saying that the charge was made by HSBC.  I have exactly the same query along with why did two transactions I made within 2 weeks of each other to one account using its 11 character BIC get charged and one, much bigger, in between, to the same account but using its 8 character BIC not get charged.

 

I just think (and it is only guesswork) that if it's a change the Thai end, all three of those transfers would have got hit, not just two.

Edited January 12, 2018 by SooKee

[Jip99]

8 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.  My saying that it's down to HSBC was in response to you saying "interesting that you blame the remitting bank".  In other words I'm 'blaming' HSBC for their decision to use an intermediary, not saying that the charge was made by HSBC.  I have exactly the same query along with why did two transactions I made within 2 weeks of each other to one account using its 11 character BIC get charged and one, much bigger, in between, to the same account but using its 8 character BIC not get charged.

 

I just think (and it is only guesswork) that if it's a change the Thai end, all three of those transfers would have got hit, not just two.

 

I agree with your final comment - although, who changed the BICs or SWIFT codes.

 

Whatever it was disturbed the long running equilibrium of fast, efficient and cheap transfers.

[SooKee]

3 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

I agree with your final comment - although, who changed the BICs or SWIFT codes.

 

Whatever it was disturbed the long running equilibrium of fast, efficient and cheap transfers.

AFAIK the two SWIFT / BIC codes have been available for a long time if you used the BIC directories, up until now though I was never aware that KASITHBK and KASITHBKXXX were the same.  Never had to be, I just used the KASITHBK BIC provided by Kasikorn and all was well.  Until now.

 

When I opened the account about 4 years ago Kasikorn told me the BIC was KASITHBK and when I set up the payee from HSBC at around the same time, from memory, I input that code and in populated with the correct details.  When I wished to modify that payee one month ago however I found that I could not edit the payee address and had to create a new one.  When creating that payee, once you start to input the BIC it opens up a drop-down list of all the BIC codes listed by HSBC for Kasikorn.  Now, KASITHBK is no longer listed as an option, only KASITHBKXXX together with a number of their commercial BICs (which should not be used for Forex transfers to private accounts).  This is what led me to query the use of those two BICs interchangeably with Kasikorn (even though the BIC directory did list both as being for the same branch - you just never know in Thailand!).

 

So it makes me think that HSBC are merely no longer including the KASITHBK BIC in their list rather than it being withdrawn, based on the fact then when I set up a transfer using TransferWise a few days the KASITHBK was the default in use by them.  

 

At some stage I may directly ask HSBC why KASITHBK is no longer available and whether it is indeed the use of KASITHBKXX that is triggering the charge.  I had already asked in around about way when explaining in my complaint to HSBC that the BIC was the only difference between the charged and non-charged transfers but, as might be expected, HSBC has chosen to not address that issue in their response, at least up until now.  I seem to recall you (or another poster) saying they've used KASITHBKXX all along and were never charged before.  If it is the BIC that's caused it, one could surmise that HSBC is in the process of working through recorded payees and that it's started hitting KASITHBKXX transfers now and will eventually work its way down to KASITHBK.  All wild speculation of course.

Edited January 12, 2018 by SooKee

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, SooKee said:

AFAIK the two SWIFT / BIC codes have been available for a long time if you used the BIC directories, up until now though I was never aware that KASITHBK and KASITHBKXXX were the same.

 

When I opened the account about 4 years ago Kasikorn told me the BIC was KASITHBK and when I set up the payee from HSBC at around the same time, from memory, I input that code and in populated with the correct details.  When I wished to modify that payee one month ago however I found that I could not edit the payee address and had to create a new one.  When creating that payee, once you start to input the BIC it opens up a drop-down list of all the BIC codes listed by HSBC for Kasikorn.  Now, KASITHBK is no longer listed as an option, only KASITHBKXXX.  This is what led me to query the use of those two BICs interchangeably with Kasikorn (even though the BIC directory did list both as being for the same branch - you just never know in Thailand!).

 

So it makes me think that HSBC are merely no longer including the KASITHBK BIC in their list rather than it being withdrawn, based on the fact then when I set up a transfer using TransferWise a few days the KASITHBK was the default in use by them.  At some stage I may directly ask HSBC why KASITHBK is no longer available and whether the use of KASITHBKXX is indeed triggering the charge.  I had already asked in around about way when explaining in my complaint to HSBC that the BIC was the only difference between the charged and non-charged transfers but, as might be expected, HSBC has chosen to not address that issue in their response, at least up until now.

 

 

AFAIK Transferwise don't send money to the Thai banks, rather they use local 'agents' with whom they swap money.

 

 

I have always used XXX for transfers to Kasikorn and Bangkok Bank.

[SooKee]

7 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

AFAIK Transferwise don't send money to the Thai banks, rather they use local 'agents' with whom they swap money.

 

 

I have always used XXX for transfers to Kasikorn and Bangkok Bank.

Correct, well, the way it works is you pay into a Transferwise account in the remitting country, they pay to a Transferwise account in the target country, that bank then transfers to your account in local currency. But you still have to enter the BIC and account number for the payee that your'e sending to in Thailand.  The point here being that KASITHBK is still in use.  Just not at HSBC now.

 

See above modified post re the XXX issue.  Just really wild speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me.  They have to start somewhere making these changes if indeed it's the BIC that is the issue.

Edited January 12, 2018 by SooKee

[Jip99]

On 11/16/2017 at 9:17 PM, JoeSuperCool said:

I just transferred £100 from 1st Direct (part of HSBC) just to test as I have a new account and received a grand total of 2600 THB, was expecting something around 4000 THB. 1st Direct promised free international transfers. Will go to my Bangkok Bank Branch tomorrow and find out how much was transferred to them and go back to 1st Direct. Anyone know of a better way of transferring between HSBC and Bangkok Bank?

 

 

See above for explanation of correspondent bank charges...

 

 

Use Transferwise.

[Jip99]

10 hours ago, SooKee said:

Correct, well, the way it works is you pay into a Transferwise account in the remitting country, they pay to a Transferwise account in the target country, that bank then transfers to your account in local currency. But you still have to enter the BIC and account number for the payee that your'e sending to in Thailand.  The point here being that KASITHBK is still in use.  Just not at HSBC now.

 

See above modified post re the XXX issue.  Just really wild speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me.  They have to start somewhere making these changes if indeed it's the BIC that is the issue.

 

Transferwise details held for crediting at Thai bank:-

 

Beneficiary's bank name [BIC/SWIFT]

Kasikornbank Public Company Ltd. [KASITHBK]

Account number

12345678